Someone probably needs to redo her debate cards.

I think a company that can't pay a livable wage should go out of business; raising the minimum wage is the only way that wages for specific jobs are going to go up because when you're scraping by at the bottom, you take what you can get or you starve and the owners know this

I find it hilarious that her plan is allow companies to pay less than livable wages because only then can they afford create the good paying jobs...but they'll continue to pay for those jobs with non-livable wages, underpaying their employees even more.
That makes no sense.

I fully agree with @Fairbs that any company that can't afford to pay it's workers livable wages should go out of business imediately, because they obviously aren't an important or well run enough business to survive if their employees can't survive working there full time. Close the doors and start a business that's successful or work for someone else who already has, don't hold on to one that has to survive on the backs of it's lowest employees to their detriment.

There is no economy without demand.

Why do these folks forget about Ford, who enraged his fellow company owners by raising his wages so astronomically? He created his buying public with the higher wages, which made him more money.

'good paying jobs' and 'no livable wage' seems a lot contradictory to me.

Finally an honest Republican.

It doesn't matter if people are poor. They don't give a shit so long as their benefactors get the legislation THEY want.

Every time someone says, they will have to shut their doors if they have to pay living wages / provide insurance / comply with regulations...I say, GOOD.

Someone else will step right in and fill the demand that your business is leaving behind. Your low paying, non-benefit, non-compliant ass will not be missed.

I can't imagine what a "great" country can be by not paying for a livable wage for a full timer.

This "great" country was started by not paying any wages for full time employees...

I love how she it seems like she thought she'd just nailed that response!... that "owned it" expression at the end.

None of you have ever run a business.

It makes you wonder if Republican candidates like her would be principled enough to come out against any existing worker protections, like getting rid of minimum wage entirely, or age limits, or worker's compensation.

It seems always to be their position that "Government can't help you, except all of the ways it's already helping you, which I promise not to interfere with".

all of us?
no one?
mighty big on the presumption bubba.

let me guess,YOU run a business?
is your boss nickname captain whiny cunt?

because every owner/boss i run into that complains about having to pay this or this or that are whiny little bitches.i am not suggesting that some of their gripes are not valid,because they are,but when it comes to paying their employees?

yeah..whiny,little bitchy cunts.

they complain endlessly how they can't find good help.how the turnover is brutal and it costs them soooo much to train,gear and clothe etc etc.

and almost every single one of them pays under 10 bucks an hr.

my son owns his own business.pays 100 bucks a job to start and if you work out? raises it to 150 bucks a job,usually does three jobs a day.

he has only had to replace one helper in five years.

compare that to his cousin,who pays a whopping 9 bucks an hour,and he goes through helpers like a semi-automatic.

guess which one is the whiny little bitch?

to be fair,the cousin does own two houses,five cars and all the newest gadgets.while my son is working on his first home.

but he ain't no bitch,and his workers adore him.

which one you billybussey?

ahh../slaps back
no need to answer!
we already know.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

I think Republicans have a disconnect on the word "Build" when they talk about Building an Economy. You build from the ground up. You don't build an attic, then put up walls, then floors, and finish with a solid foundation. It starts with that solid foundation. In an economy like ours that rely on people spending, you need people to be able to spend. That means the people at the low end that do more spending than those on the top (per dollar earned anyhow), need to be the ones having disposable income. If they spend 100% or more of their income on living essentials, they can't spend to move the economy. When they finally do spend, then the retailer can hire more people (at least until automation starts taking over low end jobs, which is frighteningly soon), which means more people with income to spend, which feeds into the cycle. Eventually transportation starts picking up, which feeds more money into the economy. Eventually production has to keep up. By punishing those at the bottom, is shooting oneself in the foot. Half the people who work for Walmart qualify for food stamps, though Walmart makes enough to pay everyone a living wage, give them benefits, and still be profitable, but the people conservatives (Christians yet, who Jesus said to help the needy and the poor, and how the rich were going to hell) are mad at, are the poor people working there, rather than the rich owners/operators for not paying living wages. So conservatives seek to punish those workers by taking away something that allows them to spend money on things that actually move the economy forward. 3 people buying a $25k Chevy will do far more for the economy than that rich ass hole who just put $70lk on a Mercedes or Lexus. Their collection of TVs, video game systems and the like, do far more for the economy than that rich guy's super high def, ultra large screen TV. It's such a fucked up world in conservative land... I'm still at a loss how I used to be a part of it.

It gets to what @enoch was talking about above. There are some really good business owners, then there are the winny bitches who say they can't pay living wages... One of the jobs I worked at, complained in a letter to all of us that if Obama won (first time around) he'd have to fire over 350 people if he put his tax plans in place. Come that February, Obama isn't even in office yet, and he fires 350+ people. Then tells the rest of us that the company couldn't afford to give us raises... of course the company at the same time, went out and purchases a private jet for him, and then he purchased a second mansion in the local, Jack Nicklaus, signature golf course gated community... and he already owned the second largest mansion there. But oh, the conservatives are so support him over his employees, and think poorly of his employees for needing help living day to day, and praise him for his business acumen. The problem with conservatives is they LOVE greed. Love it. They worship it more than they do the Christ they say they serve. They just don't want their money going to help others, they give plenty at their church, they give time at the soup kitchen, but God forbid that their taxes help those working for the asshole business owners who chose greed over their employees. Pay your employees living wages, and no, you won't have it on easy street like Enoch's nephew, but I can guarantee you that his son is the far better human... and that's not to say the nephew doesn't give, he very well may, but he chose to take that money for himself than to pay his employees well. It doesn't matter if he gives tons of it away, it was ill gotten, how much could it have helped his employees had he let them keep more of their labor? Sadly, that nephew seems to be the vast majority of businesses in the US.

Ford had what 2000 - 10,000 employees. OK they got better wages.

How did all the other 100 000 people afford the car on lower wages?

By the higher spending brought about by the other workers who were making a relative fortune? It's really not that hard to understand that the economy was helped a lot more by the workers having money to spend than it would've been by Ford being a multiple or two richer than he became.

Trickle up. A rising tide lifts all boats.